Why are the Glazers/Woody running the club so badly?

[ti vu]

No dof always gets it right. It's liverpool turn these last few years. Previously they're in the wilderness under the same owner. Chelsea has its up and down. The best club in the world barcelona has their purple decades until the emergence of messi and pep. City is a special case eith their spending power.

Yes. Ed isnt perfect and he's far from good. I just dont think firing him and hire another name as a fix to our problem. Unless the next ceo has a time machine he'll have his fair share of hit and miss.

No one expect just hits. The issue is without structure you don't even know whether you're right or wrong. There is no blueprint to follow.

If there were no structure, Barcelona might just not pay all that money to bring a young Messi into their academy. Barcelona nearly lost Ronaldinho because they didn't have enough money and being outbid dead by us just for Queiorz to royally messed up. They're not that wealthy back then to throw money without a plan. Pep got the job not just because he was from he club. It's also the connections with the people at the club working play a part. Again structure means that people who got the job know what to do. Every appointment, signings are gamble.

Same with Liverpool and Chelsea. Yet they all agreed to to move to a new model. Post SAF, Liverpool and Chelsea had been in title challenge (Chelsea won 2) not just one occasion while we weren't even in one. The structure help easing the transition period. Failure would be accounted, and be clear where/ which is to be fixed. The way we are, fixing one hole, we find ourselves with few more holes.

 

[elmo]

You could argue that they are empowering the wrong man, otherwise I don't see how they have withheld money for transfers. Why are they backing Woodward? For all we know he was the man recommended by David Gill when he decided to step away and many in the board of directors probably still have faith in him. It would be much easier if we know who to fault for this malaise but going by what we know and the insane amount of money invested both in transfers, wages for both players and managers, its certainly not the owners.

Trusting the wrong man for the job despite multiple failures makes them accountable as well.

Where's the accountability to be had? Multiple managers have come and gone with heavy payouts incurred and yet the person responsible for their recruitment still gets away with it.

 

[Igor Drefljak]

Well if the email I received the other day is to be believed, season tickets for next season are already sold out...
Glazers won't care, they're still selling just fine

 

[BlueHaze]

No dof always gets it right. It's liverpool turn these last few years. Previously they're in the wilderness under the same owner. Chelsea has its up and down. The best club in the world barcelona has their purple decades until the emergence of messi and pep. City is a special case eith their spending power.

Yes. Ed isnt perfect and he's far from good. I just dont think firing him and hire another name as a fix to our problem. Unless the next ceo has a time machine he'll have his fair share of hit and miss.

So you suggest Ed should remain in his current position after 6 years of ineptitude?

 

[Physiocrat]

I think it just comes down to not really knowing how long they wish to stick around for.

If they were in it for the long run, then heavy investment to get us back to the top would be the most viable route. It increases the fan base and in the long run those fans turn into more cash.

However, at the moment we are still turning a profit, so if they see it as another 10 years and then go; there really is no need to make major investments. The generation that grew up with Fergie will see them over that 10 year mark and the club will still be sign as massively profitable. They can then limit investment and still cash in big.

They will know when profits start to take a drop, and that's when you will see them wanting to sell. There are rumours of it already due to our stagnation, and another bad season or 2 could see us hit that limit. I'm sure they'll be pulling out the stops to make sure we don't go 2 years out of the CL, however if we do make it next year, I hope it's not a papering over the cracks type job, and we can actually see some real progress, otherwise it's just back to square one.

Along with incompetence this seems the most plausible explanation. Short term over long term profits

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

Well if the email I received the other day is to be believed, season tickets for next season are already sold out...
Glazers won't care, they're still selling just fine

When was the last time ticket sales had been the biggest share of United's revenue? The club is a PLC and listed on the stock exchange, its way too big to use that as a single measure of success.

 

[Igor Drefljak]

When was the last time ticket sales had been the biggest share of United's revenue? The club is a PLC and listed on the stock exchange, its way too big to use that as a single measure of success.

I probably slightly posted this in the wrong topic.
I was more saying, it really doesn't matter what us fans think.
Glazers out, Ed Woodward out, Stadium walkout etc

Fans still go mad for the tickets, so in their minds, business as usual.
Until their pockets are hit hard, things wont change.
I agree, ticket sales are a small part of the grand scheme, but revenue isn't overly affected at all, not yet anyway.

 

[P-Nut]

Just seen this from NBC....

" It's like they're trying to build a mansion, you have limitless funds and you get your financial manager to do it, instead of an architect"

Makes so much sense and everyone can see it, yet the glazers supposedly can't. It's definitely not incompetence, it's a choice they've purposefully made.

 

[Buster15]

“Woodward out” plane-banner vs Cardiff?

Highly original. No one has thought of that before.

 

[Sir Scott McToMinay]

Highly original. No one has thought of that before.

Words are just words what we need is action.

 

[Buster15]

Words are just words what we need is action.

Couldn't agree with you more.

 

[cr4cki3]

Fact of the matter is we have spent a shed load of money since SAF and signed the wrong players for our club and I don't think anyone here knows who is actually responsible for the signings. We will never find out the truth on that fact but for me the responsibilities of the running of the club fall with the owners and if there employees are not up to standard get rid but we know the football side of the club isn't as important as the commercial side and ultimately profit.

Think the question is not blame but what can we do as a collective to rectify this...?

 

[Tincanalley]

Thanks to US based supporters who have explained how the Glazers model of business has been applied in the American Football league. Let’s keep thinking of ways to make them piss off from Old Trafford

 

[2ndTouch]

You really are a huge fan of his aren’t you? Maybe you should go support Ed. Why not start a forum called Ed Cafe and quit trying to argue the unarguable with Man Utd fans.

Fantastic
As for Ed, he probably never watched a game of football prior to his assignment. But his business acumen is beyond doubt, and for a business, that is what matters in the end. The club may be run badly from a supporter perspective, the Glazers POV however might be a different one.

 

[blythy]

the fact that CFG have put £1b into Manchester city at the same the Glazers have taken £1b out says it all really.

It does indeed.

 

[Im red2]

Malcolm Glazer died, Avram is his son and is not only still very much alive and kicking but is by most reports involved in signing off the biggest club decisions. For example the sacking of Mourinho is reported to have followed a Skype meeting between Woodward and Avram where presumably Woodward was seeking board approval for the sacking.

In terms of the Glazer ownership of United I have made my feelings perfectly clear for years. Simplification and soundbyte it may be, but the fact that CFG have put £1b into Manchester city at the same the Glazers have taken £1b out says it all really. They also hired three football business experts from Barcelona, sorted their scouting, recruitment and training facilities out and set out with the goal of creating a structure to dominate the sport for years to come at the same time that the Glazers stood still.

We're paying the price for a lack of investment, lack of vision and the lack of a backroom structure for success. Their takeover and management of United has been absolutely disastrous for the club and a few years of unrelated success under Ferguson shouldn't blind any United fans to this.

Totally correct, we are doomed until they leave.

 

[jontheblue]

They're literally killing the goose that lays the golden egg. How the feck is that them having a fecking clue on how the club should be run?

They'v been riding their luck with how useless Chelsea and Arsenal has been and that's the only thing that's kept the sponsors 'happy'. The next round of commercial deals will be far lower than what Woodward has gotten previously due to the shitty results, but yeah they know what they doing

I didn't say that they have a clue how a football club should be run. I said they aren't clueless

The glazers are taking £20M per annum out in divis, the directors/execs including half a dozen glazers are taking £13M per annum in wages and last year they raised £55M from a sale of 4.3M shares.

That doesn't sound like clueless people to me but if they are, I'd love to be clueless and raking in that much money from a hugely leveraged investment

They literally don't give a sh*t what is done on the pitch, or how many supporters hate them. The fact people are still talking on here about protests says just how much the fans are clueless about what the glazers care about, which is solely money.

 

[Im red2]

Ive said it a thousand times on this forum but no one listens - the Glazers invested in this club as a ‘sports franchise’. Its an american thing, Ramped up sponsorship on the with 750 million adidas deals and matchday bleach sponsors whilst making the minimum investment to keep the team competitive enough to remain in the UCL. Sorry if anyone thinks any different. Simply put, the investment needed to get us to title contenders is more than the extra prizemoney so they dont want to win anything.
They just care about the financial gain. After last years low financial outlay versus our revenues we could spend 4or 5 hundred million. But we wont. We are on here talking skriniar and sancho. Woodies sat with the glazers talking alderweireld and gueye and whatever baragin bin buys they can reel in and the least they can spend to get us to scrape top 4 is. Look what Randy Lerner did to Villa. Look what Gillet and Hicks did to Liverpool

At least some can see the truth of what is happening to United. An old quote from Woodward, shows that we are not in it to win trophies. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...ed-dont-need-win-trophies-sponsors-money.html

 

[Im red2]

Why are they running our club so badly?
Easy. From their perspective they only look at one thing.
And that is the bottom line.
Manchester United to them is simply a business investment with one purpose in mind.
Maximising a return on investment.
The fact that it is a football club is of little consequence. I very much doubt that they even like football (soccer to them).
When that bottom line fails to live up to expectations they are then able to sell it on for a significant profit.
These are not football people. They are investors and from our perspective terrible investors.
Moreover, they have absolutely no idea how to turn this club around.
They have absolutely no interest in its long term future.
It's all about the bottom line stupid.

Fact

 

[Im red2]

No dof always gets it right. It's liverpool turn these last few years. Previously they're in the wilderness under the same owner. Chelsea has its up and down. The best club in the world barcelona has their purple decades until the emergence of messi and pep. City is a special case eith their spending power.

Yes. Ed isnt perfect and he's far from good. I just dont think firing him and hire another name as a fix to our problem. Unless the next ceo has a time machine he'll have his fair share of hit and miss.

Ed is a puppet, he is the guy who helped the leeches take over United. All they have done since taking over is make money off the club, while their puppet made sponsorship deals for anything possible. Over 1 billion has been taken out of the club to pay back loans and other debts. It is all just a front which the Glazers hide behind while they take money out of the club. Firing ED would not make a lot of difference unless the owners decided to sell the club. Because after Ed they would find another puppet. The sad fact is that Manchester United have no interest in trying to compete to win trophies under the current owners. They would be satisfied with a top 4 finish. A director of Football would be a good idea, and I believe Edwin Van der Saar would be a good choice. BUt I bet we end up with a technical director instead which will mean no change. Woodward has had 6 disastrous seasons and still sitting comfortably in his spot. Do not expect things to get any better this coming window.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

Malcolm Glazer died, Avram is his son and is not only still very much alive and kicking but is by most reports involved in signing off the biggest club decisions. For example the sacking of Mourinho is reported to have followed a Skype meeting between Woodward and Avram where presumably Woodward was seeking board approval for the sacking.

In terms of the Glazer ownership of United I have made my feelings perfectly clear for years. Simplification and soundbyte it may be, but the fact that CFG have put £1b into Manchester city at the same the Glazers have taken £1b out says it all really. They also hired three football business experts from Barcelona, sorted their scouting, recruitment and training facilities out and set out with the goal of creating a structure to dominate the sport for years to come at the same time that the Glazers stood still.

We're paying the price for a lack of investment, lack of vision and the lack of a backroom structure for success. Their takeover and management of United has been absolutely disastrous for the club and a few years of unrelated success under Ferguson shouldn't blind any United fans to this.

This is so bang on and completely at the heart of the issue of the club.

 

[simonhch]

Just for the lolz I reckon.

 

[Lentwood]

Liverpool - Michael Edwards - Sporting Director - CV

- Former player, released by Peterborough Utd
- Starts a career in football analytics at Portsmouth
- Appointed Head of Performance Analysis in 2003
- Appointed Head of Performance Analysis at Spurs in 2009
- Appointed Head of Performance & Analysis at Liverpool in 2011
- Appointed Sporting Director at Liverpool in 2016

Man City - Txiki Bergiristain - Director of Football - CV

- Former player, 514 appearances and capped 22 times by Spain
- Appointed Director of Football at Barcelona in 2003
- Appointed Director of Football at City in 2012

Manchester United - Edward Woodward - CEO - CV

- Graduates from Bristol University with degree in Physics
- Qualifies as Chartered Accountant in 1996
- Joins JP Morgan in 'Mergers & Acquisitions' division in 1999
- Advises Glazer family as they complete takeover of United in 2005
- Appointed Head of Commercial & Media Operations at Manchester United in 2007
- Appointed Executive Vice Chairman in 2012

After examining the above I just can't work out why we keep making so many bad footballing decisions compared with our two main rivals? I don't get it....anyone care to offer some insight?

 

[el3mel]

Liverpool - Michael Edwards - Sporting Director - CV

- Former player, released by Peterborough Utd
- Starts a career in football analytics at Portsmouth
- Appointed Head of Performance Analysis in 2003
- Appointed Head of Performance Analysis at Spurs in 2009
- Appointed Head of Performance & Analysis at Liverpool in 2011
- Appointed Sporting Director at Liverpool in 2016

Man City - Txiki Bergiristain - Director of Football - CV

- Former player, 514 appearances and capped 22 times by Spain
- Appointed Director of Football at Barcelona in 2003
- Appointed Director of Football at City in 2012

Manchester United - Edward Woodward - CEO - CV

- Graduates from Bristol University with degree in Physics
- Qualifies as Chartered Accountant in 1996
- Joins JP Morgan in 'Mergers & Acquisitions' division in 1999
- Advises Glazer family as they complete takeover of United in 2005
- Appointed Head of Commercial & Media Operations at Manchester United in 2007
- Appointed Executive Vice Chairman in 2012

After examining the above I just can't work out why we keep making so many bad footballing decisions compared with our two main rivals? I don't get it....anyone care to offer some insight?

He brings sponsors though. You can't knock that out at least!

 

[Eckers99]

Words are just words what we need is action.

But your idea of action is basically more words.

 

[Sky1981]

Ed is a puppet, he is the guy who helped the leeches take over United. All they have done since taking over is make money off the club, while their puppet made sponsorship deals for anything possible. Over 1 billion has been taken out of the club to pay back loans and other debts. It is all just a front which the Glazers hide behind while they take money out of the club. Firing ED would not make a lot of difference unless the owners decided to sell the club. Because after Ed they would find another puppet. The sad fact is that Manchester United have no interest in trying to compete to win trophies under the current owners. They would be satisfied with a top 4 finish. A director of Football would be a good idea, and I believe Edwin Van der Saar would be a good choice. BUt I bet we end up with a technical director instead which will mean no change. Woodward has had 6 disastrous seasons and still sitting comfortably in his spot. Do not expect things to get any better this coming window.

How much they bought united for?
Where do you get that 1 billion figure from?

 

[VanGaalyTime]

How much they bought united for?
Where do you get that 1 billion figure from?

For those who truly don't know: the Glazers put almost a billion in debt on the club when they were bought.

 

[Sky1981]

For those who truly don't know: the Glazers put almost a billion in debt on the club when they were bought.

First. It's not a billion.

Second. They put united future gate receipt as collateral, not the actual ground or the club itself.

Third. They paid the debt eventually year by year by taking a justifiable amount each year of what should have been the fruits of their investment. They dont get 1 billion richer in their bank account. Because the dividend they took they use it to pay the loans. Just as we all did when we bought a house, or start a business.

Fourth. The debt is paid off now. We're 4x our value when they bought us. For what its worth we can now afford 200m budget, we can now afford to have the highest wage in epl. Thanks to them or not, tv deal or no tv deal it happens under their ownership and its to their credit. They bought us for 1.5 and do the right thing economically to make us grow 2.5x in 10 years.

The plc, as much as we all prefer it. Took more divident each year. They're also stingy with their money, saf has to fought tooth and nails with the supposed fans owner to purchase players in the past.

 

[Denis79]

Third. They paid the debt eventually year by year by taking a justifiable amount each year of what should have been the fruits of their investment. They dont get 1 billion richer in their bank account. Because the dividend they took they use it to pay the loans. Just as we all did when we bought a ho

Firstly they do get richer, bank account or not, secondly by purchasing without sufficient initial capital you intentionally put a company in a tough spot by directing a majority of the internal economy towards loans, interest and taxes. Why you try to make them out to be some sorts of fans of the club I have no idea. Their interest is profit and nothing else, which is fine but you sugarcoating a less then desirable situation is just strange.

The growth United experienced is not unique in any way nor down to their brilliant economical strategy, We were already an economically strong club when they took over. Look through the other PL clubs and see in how much their revenue and club value have increased in the same amount of time. You'll find they're not far from our growth in %.

 

[Sky1981]

Firstly they do get richer, bank account or not, secondly by purchasing without sufficient initial capital you intentionally put a company in a tough spot by directing a majority of the internal economy towards loans, interest and taxes. Why you try to make them out to be some sorts of fans of the club I have no idea. Their interest is profit and nothing else, which is fine but you sugarcoating a less then desirable situation is just strange.

The growth United experienced is not unique in any way nor down to their brilliant economical strategy, We were already an economically strong club when they took over. Look through the other PL clubs and see in how much their revenue and club value have increased in the same amount of time. You'll find they're not far from our growth in %.

Fans ownership in forms of stocks are actually loan.

When fans bought stock, they put in their money, get interest, own the company.

 

[Denis79]

Fans ownership in forms of stocks are actually loan.

When fans bought stock, they put in their money, get interest, own the company.

Yup and how do you think the Glazers take their money? Add bank interests on that on top of high dividend taxes.

 

[Raees]

Fantastic
As for Ed, he probably never watched a game of football prior to his assignment. But his business acumen is beyond doubt, and for a business, that is what matters in the end. The club may be run badly from a supporter perspective, the Glazers POV however might be a different one.

I keep hearing about this great business acumen but surely the first rule of business is not hiring incompetent people or putting them in roles where they’re ill suited to?

Being bad on the football pitch is bad for business. Yes we are still growing commercially but imagine how much we could have grown if there was success on the football pitch to accompany it? We had a head start in this area and we are getting caught up and there is only so much you can rely upon past success to help get you that constant financial growth.

I still don’t buy into the argument the Glazers have merely taken money out - there has been more than enough money provided for wages and transfers so that doesn’t make any sense to me. What they have done though is take their eye completely off the ball in appointing Woodward in charge of football operations and the fact he’s still fecking there is a disgraced quite frankly.

We’re run by incompetent buffoons who got lucky with Sir Alex still at the helm. When they had to run the club themselves post his departure they’ve been found wanting big time.

 

[UnitedFan93]

First. It's not a billion.

Second. They put united future gate receipt as collateral, not the actual ground or the club itself.

Third. They paid the debt eventually year by year by taking a justifiable amount each year of what should have been the fruits of their investment. They dont get 1 billion richer in their bank account. Because the dividend they took they use it to pay the loans. Just as we all did when we bought a house, or start a business.

Fourth. The debt is paid off now. We're 4x our value when they bought us. For what its worth we can now afford 200m budget, we can now afford to have the highest wage in epl. Thanks to them or not, tv deal or no tv deal it happens under their ownership and its to their credit. They bought us for 1.5 and do the right thing economically to make us grow 2.5x in 10 years.

The plc, as much as we all prefer it. Took more divident each year. They're also stingy with their money, saf has to fought tooth and nails with the supposed fans owner to purchase players in the past.

No it's not. As it stands today we're still £487 million in debt. The amount of debt loaded onto our club is an absolute disgrace!

 

[Lentwood]

First. It's not a billion.

Second. They put united future gate receipt as collateral, not the actual ground or the club itself.

Third. They paid the debt eventually year by year by taking a justifiable amount each year of what should have been the fruits of their investment. They dont get 1 billion richer in their bank account. Because the dividend they took they use it to pay the loans. Just as we all did when we bought a house, or start a business.

Fourth. The debt is paid off now. We're 4x our value when they bought us. For what its worth we can now afford 200m budget, we can now afford to have the highest wage in epl. Thanks to them or not, tv deal or no tv deal it happens under their ownership and its to their credit. They bought us for 1.5 and do the right thing economically to make us grow 2.5x in 10 years.

The plc, as much as we all prefer it. Took more divident each year. They're also stingy with their money, saf has to fought tooth and nails with the supposed fans owner to purchase players in the past.

If you must insist on defending these cretins, at least get your facts right.....The debt is absolutely NOT paid off. In fact, we have one of the highest levels of net debt in world football, if not THE highest.

I'm not trawling through the Internet to find exact figures for 2019 as I've not the time nor the inclination but as of Jan 2017 the debt stood at £464m

What the Glazers have done is bought our club with loans, paid some of the loans back with the clubs money - most notably between 2005-2010 before the debt was restructured and became more 'manageable' (note - this coincides with a period of 5yrs where we had a net spend of +£19m....) whilst all the time paying themselves millions in wages and dividends.

It should be illegal, or if not illegal, the Premier League/UEFA should stop clubs being taken over in this manner.

 

[Ventura]

Badly run, what are you talking about? We're making tons of cash!

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

More likely than most suggestions here, it's because they rely too much on the advice of the advisory board. (Gill, Charlton, SAF etc)

No question whatsoever that the advisory board selected David Moyes, and without any doubt the return of Phelan and Solksjaer was their doing also. That Rio Ferdinand and Darren Fletcher are rumoured candidates for the DoF role is more proof that the advisory board are involved in much of the football decision making at Old Trafford.

In between all that it appears the money man decided to have a go themselves and hired Mourinho.

 

[scholesyboy18]

Mostly agree.

Disagree. We replaced Ronaldo with 3 average players. United never replaced Scholes, even though it was obvious that our midfield was shit. After the 06-07 team faded, never spent money on the right players.

 

[Sky1981]

If you must insist on defending these cretins, at least get your facts right.....The debt is absolutely NOT paid off. In fact, we have one of the highest levels of net debt in world football, if not THE highest.

I'm not trawling through the Internet to find exact figures for 2019 as I've not the time nor the inclination but as of Jan 2017 the debt stood at £464m

What the Glazers have done is bought our club with loans, paid some of the loans back with the clubs money - most notably between 2005-2010 before the debt was restructured and became more 'manageable' (note - this coincides with a period of 5yrs where we had a net spend of +£19m....) whilst all the time paying themselves millions in wages and dividends.

It should be illegal, or if not illegal, the Premier League/UEFA should stop clubs being taken over in this manner.

Highest level of net debt? In the world?

 

[Scriblerus]

First. It's not a billion.

Second. They put united future gate receipt as collateral, not the actual ground or the club itself.

Third. They paid the debt eventually year by year by taking a justifiable amount each year of what should have been the fruits of their investment. They dont get 1 billion richer in their bank account. Because the dividend they took they use it to pay the loans. Just as we all did when we bought a house, or start a business.

Fourth. The debt is paid off now. We're 4x our value when they bought us. For what its worth we can now afford 200m budget, we can now afford to have the highest wage in epl. Thanks to them or not, tv deal or no tv deal it happens under their ownership and its to their credit. They bought us for 1.5 and do the right thing economically to make us grow 2.5x in 10 years.

The plc, as much as we all prefer it. Took more divident each year. They're also stingy with their money, saf has to fought tooth and nails with the supposed fans owner to purchase players in the past.

This is about as accurate as a White House press release.

 

[rpg]

Frankly speaking i been suspecting also them of not doing the right things for the club. But i also couldnt pinpoint exactly how they should be doing otherwise. Perhaps i'm equally as bad as them in this.

Other than the first Moyes appointment, Van Gaal and Mourinho are both popular appointments, supported by majorities of fans. Both have won a lot, proven and its not their fault that both have failed.

Then Solsjaekr appointment is a back to United Fergie styles and he was popular as well during his winning trots before given the permanent contract.

And the board spent like 500mln in transfer and Woodward securing many good deals for us. Despite 6 years of inferiority, the club still raking in record revenue profits. The commercial sides are wonderfully run. We got one of the best training facilities and ground in world. Most of new players i suspect was choosen by the managers. So are the coaches. I believe Woodward didnt choose our styles of play game in game out.

But obviously they are doing something wrong, because the team aren't performing. But what they could have done otherwise?
Is appointing a DOF will make us sucessful?